Engineering Students as Moral Value Co-Creators.

   
Journal: science and engineering ethics
 
Gunter Bombaerts, Philosophy and Ethics, department IE&IS, Eindhoven University of Technology,
the Netherlands, 0000-0002-8006-1617, g.bombaerts@tue.nl
Karolina Doulougeri Erasmus School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Erasmus University
Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 000-0001-6981-4529, doulougeri@essb.eur.nl
Mandi Astola Philosophy and Ethics group, department IE&IS, Eindhoven University of Technology,
the Netherlands, ORCID
Shelly Tsui Philosophy and Ethics, department IE&IS, Eindhoven University of Technology, the
Netherlands, ORCID
Erik Laes Philosophy and Ethics, department IE&IS, Eindhoven University of Technology, the
Netherlands, ORCID
Andreas Spahn Philosophy and Ethics, department IE&IS,Eindhoven University of Technology, the
Netherlands, ORCID
Diana Adela Martin, dept?, Technical University Dublin, Ireland, ORCID
Tijn Borghuis?
Jan Vermunt?
 

 
 Engineering Students as Moral Value Co-Creators.
 
 
Tutor – tutor
 
Abstract
Case studies are widely used in ethics education to increase engineering students’ motivation and
competence development. However, cases are utilized in different ways and little evidence is
available on the cases’ effectiveness.
We report on a nine weeks ethics of technology course for first-year’s engineering students in a
Dutch technical university with two different approaches. A “detached” approach used cases in a
conceptual way. A challenge-based learning (CBL) approach involved engineering students as co-
creators in actual value co-creation (CC) processes.
We formulated three research questions: (1) Is the CBL approach better than the detached approach
for students’ perceived competence development and motivation? (2) What is the relation between
perceived co-creation on the one hand and the perceived competence development and motivation
on the other hand? (3) What are practical implications of teaching ethics with CC?
We used a mixed method approach for our analysis. Quantitative questionnaires were electronically
taken in week 9 and analyzed with factor analysis, t-tests and correlation analysis. Qualitative results
were obtained with observations, focus groups and in-depth interviews and analyzed with NVIVO.
Results showed that the CBL approach had higher intrinsic motivation and competence but lower
identified regulation. Perceived competence development differed little between the approaches, but
showed medium to large correlations with students’ perceived co-creation.
We conclude that CBL and co-creation are promising approaches for ethics courses in engineering
education. More research is needed on practicalities of CBL and the effect of student differences.
 
Words: 239/250
 
Key words
(6)
Case-based learning, Challenge-Based Learning, Co-Creation, Self-Determination Theory, competence
development, ACQA
 
Word count:
YYY/10.000
 
1. Introduction

Gunter and Diana 500-750 words: here issues with cases in ethics education as pictured in literature
Case studies are considered to be a very popular method for teaching ethics in engineering higher
education in the US (Herkert, 2000; Colby and Sullivan, 2008; Haws 2001). Despite the prevalence of
case based instruction, there is a “lack of rigorous research” in regards to its effectiveness (Barry and
Ohland 2009, 381), such that “instructors know little about the influence of cases on students' ethical
understanding” (Yadav and Barry, 2009, p. 138). Looking at the European context, a report from the
Royal Academy of Engineering concluded that there is “an overwhelming need for case study
material that engages the students” (Fotheringham, 2008). There are also considerable variations in
regards to the type of content employed in case instruction and the way in which cases are
implemented, marked by a lack of consensus as to which approach is more effective and towards
which goals (Davis, 1999; Gorman, Mehalik and Werhane, 2000; Herkert, 2000; Haws, 2001; Harris,
Pritchard, and Rabins, 2009,; Jonassen and Hernandez-Serrano, 2002; Herreid, 2007; Abaté, 2011).

A better understanding of the use of cases in engineering ethics education is important because this
education struggles with motivating, challenging and making ethics relevant young engineering
students REF.

Given the limited evidence available on case instruction as well as the variable effect on learning and
transfer based on case content (Bagdasarov et al 2013), it is imperative to enquire about the
principles governing the development and implementation of ethics case studies in the curricula of
engineering programmes. Our study aims to bring a contribution to the limited empirical research on
the use of engineering ethics cases, by examining the influence of the use of cases in ethics courses in
engineering education on students’ basic needs, motivation and competencies. For this, we are
focusing on two types of cases-based approaches implemented at a medium sized Dutch technical
university: one case-based learning approach using [[[ANDREAS]]] and a challenge-based learning
(CBL) approach that stresses the use of co-creation (CC) by involving students as co-creators in real-
life co-creation processes.

FINISH LATER The article starts by laying the theoretical foundation of our teaching approach, by first
focusing on the presentation of some of the main characteristics of engineering ethics case studies
and the [link to SDT]. In the following section, we proceed by describing an alternative to traditional
case instruction, which was implemented at the university for a common first year course [?], that of
co-creative ethics case studies informed by challenge based learning  …. …… ……

2. Theory

2.1. Case studies in engineering ethics education

Case studies have been used in engineering ethics education in different ways, their content varying
in terms of the prospect for the scenario’s occurrence, the scope of the scenario described and the
type of student involvement in the scenario, as rendered in Table X.

In terms of the scope of the scenario, we can distinguish between cases that have a micro outlook,
putting forward the individualist perspective of an agent required to make a decision in light of the
situation described in the scenario and macro cases, which emphasise the broader context and the
collective nature of decision making in engineering situations (Kline 2010; Martin, Conlon and Bowe,
2019).  Colby and Sullivan (2008, 331) note that cases “typically involve a mix of normal human error,
organizational failure and individual violations of professional standards”, pointing to a preference
towards microethical case instruction. Considering the prospect for the occurrence of the scenario
described, engineering ethics case studies tend to depict either special one-time events, represented
by notable failures and disasters, or more mundane or common situations that can occur in an
engineering’s day to job practice.

Alongside these two widely used distinctions, micro vs macro and special vs common events, aimed
at categorizing the content of engineering ethics case studies, we propose an additional layer of
analysis focused on the involvement expected of students in the scenario. As such, the content of
engineering ethics case studies can be interpreted as distant, where the scenario presented is
remote and students have no direct experience with the case itself, or as involved, requiring a co-
creative and active involvement of students in manipulating the case in order to contribute to a
specific outcome.

Table X: Typology of engineering ethics cases with three dimensions relevant for our inquiry

Student Likelihood of Scope Example

Involvement occurence

Distant Special Event Macro Chernobyl (Wilson, 2013, p. 636); Hurricane Katrina  (Newberry, 2010);
Rana Plaza disaster (Kumar, 2015)

Distant Special Event Micro Challenger accident; Ford-Pinto gas tank ignition, the DC-10 plane crash
(Kline 2010)

Distant Common Macro Millennium Goals: Developing a biodegradable fabric (Gorman, Mehalik and
Werhane, 2000); Nanosilver lining (Demsey, Stamets and Eggleson, 2016);
water supply and demand in Dublin area (Byrne 2012)

Distant Common Micro Professional integrity, conflict of interest, safety (Shallcross, 2013, this
article)

Co-creative Common Macro Where there is no engineer (Mc Carton and O'Hógáin, 2018) - Contribute to
ocean plastic clean up.

Co-creative Common Micro Task for stakeholder (this article)

The “distant special-event macro” cases falling under this category focus on natural or man-made
disasters in order to invite reflection on the systemic context of engineering practice, including policy
effects or cultural and socio-economic models. They often ask students to take a hypothetical stance
in regards to the “kind of world they want to engineer” (Mitcham 2017). The goal of this approach is
to make students aware of the necessity of addressing structural limitations and empowering them
to pursue a responsible engineering practice, by correcting existing norms, policies and regulations
(Swierstra and Jelsma, 2005). Kumar’s (2015) case study of the Rana Plaza collapse considers the
relation between the low cost of international outsourcing to non-western countries and the
lowering of safety standards in these regions, without neglecting root issues such as the
overconsumption trend manifest in western societies (Swearengen and Woodhouse 2003).

The “distant special-event micro” cases are often referred to as “disaster” cases, presenting events
with catastrophic consequences for individuals or the environment, such as the explosion of the
Challenger shuttle or The Turkish Airlines DC-10 plane crash. There is a strong focus on accountability
and prevention, looking to identify retrospectively the chain of causes leading up to a catastrophic
incident (Huff and Frey, 2005). It is one of the most popular type of content employed in engineering
ethics case instruction (Haws, 2001; Huff and Frey, 2005, p. 401).

The “distant common macro” cases are, like the “distant special event macro” cases, concerned with
the societal, cultural and political aspects of engineering practice (Lynch and Kline 2000). These
considerations tend to be focused on a particular engineering product or decision-making process,
enquiring on the values and modes of use of a product that are embedded at the design stage. This
type of cases focus on forward looking reflection on the societal impact of an engineering design.
Broader engineering issues like sustainability or inequality can be explored hypothetically using this
type of cases (Gorman, Mehalik and Werhane, 2000; Kline 2010), such that students can learn how
technological innovation is interwoven with a broader complex reality.

The “distant common micro” cases are typically formulated as dilemmas faced by an individual
engineer in her practice, conceived either as having clear-cut answers or as wicked problems. The use
of these cases has a strong emphasis on the development of moral reasoning and of knowledge of
professional codes and standards. Topics tend to be derived from the precepts of professional codes
of conduct, national and international regulations and health and safety standards, and may include
conflict of interest, professional integrity or concerns about safety (Latcha and Jordan 1996;
Shallcross 2013; Andrews, 2013).

Recent years have witnessed a twofold reaction to what we previously labelled as detached case
studies. One such reaction is represented by criticism pointing to the abstract nature of engineering
ethics case instruction, which neglects the context of engineering practice and the power
relationships inherent to the profession. (Winner 1990; Lynch and Kline 2000; Bucciarelli 2008;
Martin, Conlon and Bowe, 2019; Morrison 2019). The second reaction is represented by the
development of initiatives exploring new ways of teaching engineering ethics through case studies,
which would more closely replicate the context of engineering practice (Mattasoglio Neto, Lima and
Mesquita, 2019; Kalamas Hedden, Worthy, Akins, Slinger-Friedman and Paul, 2017; Holgaard and
Kolmos, 2018).

Higher education answered with Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) and opened the boundaries of the
classrooms to outside stakeholders and problems, encouraging students to develop a project that
could afterwards be implemented “in the real world”. The solutions proposed by students are thus
carried from the conception stage to the actualization stage. The final product is aimed at a real
audience, rather than meeting hypothetical coordinates. (Johnson and Adams, 2011; Nichols, Cator
and Torres, 2016) [[[[+other REFERENCES]]]]] 

2.2. Moral Value Co-Creation

CBL requires students to work more closely together with external stakeholders. Business literature
and innovation sciences describe a particular way how quadruple helix actors as companies,
governments, knowledge institutions and citizens work more closely together in innovation
processes. Kambil et al (1996) introduced the term value co-creation in the business literature to
emphasize the role of customers in business strategy and marketing. (Monetary) value is seen as co-
created with customers if and when a customer is able to personalize his experiences through a
product or service – in the lifetime of its use – to a level that is best suited to get his job(s) done (ref).
Currenlty, the definition of Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004, ppp) is widely used, stating that “co-
creation is defined as the process by which groups of people from across boundaries come together
with a shared purpose to create value through improving or developing services and products. Co-
creation thus stands for a process of designing with people and not for them.” Voorberg et al. (2014,
ppp) stress the same collaborative engagement, involvement and contribution in their definition of
co-production as “the active involvement and engagement of actors in the production of knowledge
that takes place in processes either emerging or being facilitated and designed to accomplish such
active involvement.” Applied to the ethics of innovations, these definitions mean that monetary
value should be extended by moral values as well. Co-creation then becomes the process by which
different stakeholders from across boundaries (companies, local and national governments,
knowledge institutions and citizens) create moral value through societal innovations.

CBL therefore is an approach stressing co-creation in education. In our ethics case-learning overview,
we see two forms of this co-creative learning. The “co-creative common macro” case study
interventions are meant to make students aware of the perspective of communities in need or of
vulnerable populations. It offers students a platform and support to take an active stance in the
design of suitable strategies and engineering solutions to address some of the problems faced by
vulnerable groups. An example is the design competition ‘Where There Is No Engineer’ coordinated
by the Development Technology in the Community group of TU Dublin and Engineers Without
Borders Ireland, which has been incorporated either as an extracurricular activity or into the modules
of several Engineering programs across Ireland and Northern Ireland (Mc Carton and O'Hógáin,
2018). The initiative aims to encourage engineering students to “design creative solutions to
development challenges globally” and “improve resilience within communities.” Among the projects
designed by students are a menstrual pad washing system for women living in refugee camps, a solar
powered battery bank, low cost heaters a.s.o (‘Where There is no Engineer…’, 2018).

The “co-creative common micro” case approach sets up a case in which students are co-creators
amongst co-creators. They work together with clients and co-create a product that, if assessed
suitable by the other co-creators, will be used in the innovation process. They can develop
theoretical decision reports, communicative videos or persuasive artefacts, all aiming at a real
impact. This approach brings an awareness of the characteristics, preferences and needs of different
stakeholders, as well as of the challenges associated with attempting to design an engineering
product while being conscious of all these different perspectives.

By immersing students into real ethically rich scenarios of engineering practice, we believe that CBL
offers a suitable framework to overcome a minus associated with the case method as a whole, of not
being able to provide “skill development at the two extremes, of problem finding and
implementation” (Aldridge, 1994, p. 235). Challenge-based learning studies are still in the inception
phase in ethics engineering education. In the remainder of this article, we want to look into the
effectiveness via the students’ motivation and competence development. We will refer to co-creative
learning if we focus in particular to the aspect of intense collaboration with stakeholders. But we are
aware that the collaboration with external stakeholders requires course designers to adapt learning
objectives, learning methods and assessment to keep them aligned (Biggs, 1999). We will refer to CBL
when we talk about the broader educational approach.

2.3. Motivation and basic needs

We use Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to study students’ motivation. SDT considers several types
[6] of motivation on a continuum ranging from amotivation, which is the state of lacking the
intention to act, to intrinsic motivation, which is the state of acting because of inherent interest,
satisfaction and enjoyment. Amotivated students avoid performing a given engineering ethics task
and do not worry too much about their learning outcomes or grades. At the other end of the
continuum, an engineering student who is intrinsically motivated just likes to learn about ethics,
because it is an inherently enjoyable task for her. Within this continuum we also find identified
regulation, which reflects a conscious valuing of a goal, such that the action is considered as
personally important and entails self-endorsement, self-knowledge and cognitive view of one’s own
functioning [7]. For example, an engineering student might not be very interested in ethics itself.
However, if she identifies herself as becoming a good engineer, she acknowledges that ethics, value-
sensitive design (REF) or moral value co-creation is nevertheless essential for her and she will
therefore be driven to study engineering.

SDT further states that motivation is supported by three basic needs. (Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;
Ryan & Deci, 2000) A basic need is an ‘energizing state that, if satisfied, conduces toward health and
well-being but, if not satisfied, contributes to pathology and ill-being’. (Ryan & Deci, 2000; 74-75)
Autonomy refers to the feeling of psychological freedom, choice in an activity and voluntary
functioning. For an ethics course, this would mean that students have the choice how to do their
assignment and which ethical theories they would like to use. Relatedness refers to the need to be
connected to others, peers as well as tutors. Competence refers to the feeling of being able to
successfully perform an activity, to control the outcome and to experience mastery (Ryan, 1995). For
an ethics course, this means it fits their current knowledge and brings the ethical issues in a way it
fits their world view, such that it is really a challenge to them that they are willing to engage in.

In Engineering Education Research, motivation (Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000) is widely
accepted and often used in motivational pre-post studies for improving courses (i.e. Gero & Mano-
Israeli, 2017; Danowitz, 2016), designing contributing students pedagogies (Herman, 2012; Herman,
2013), or providing scalable reform (Herman, Somerville, Goldberg, & Green, 2012;  Herman,
Somerville, Stolk, Trenshaw, & Goldberg, 2013).

2.4. Self-assessment of competence development via ACQA

Next to motivation, we want to gain insight in the learning effects of the CBL/CC method. We cannot
use grading of assignments here, since both approaches have different assignments, grading
methods and rubrics. We therefore opt for a self-assessment of competence development in
engineering ethics education that can be applied uniformly across the different approaches. We
consider competencies as dynamic combinations of knowledge, understanding, skills, and abilities
(ref Anderson) and use for the present study the Academic Competences and Quality Assurance
(ACQA), a framework of academic competencies developed at the Eindhoven University of
Technology (TU/e) and shown useful both at TU/e and at other universities for describing and
designing curricula in terms of learning outcomes within the domain of technology education
(Perrenet et al., 2017) and as an important part of the quality assurance system. ACQA aims to make
the notion of “academic education” explicit and measurable by defining in detail competencies that
engineers of the future should exhibit. The ACQA framework contains seven competence areas
applicable to the overall engineering training program and every area contains five to eight
competencies, formulated at bachelor’s and master’s level in a discipline-independent way. In this
article we focus on the contributions of these seven fields to ethics engineering education: (1)
disciplinary competence in doing research, for engineering ethics education referring to the discipline
of ethics that engineering students get taught; (2) designing, referring here to taking moral values
into account; (3) ethics as a scientific approach; (4) basic intellectual skills linked with ethics and
morality of the engineering profession; (5) cooperating with other stakeholders, with specific focus to
values; (6) communicating specifically about values to stakeholders; and (7) temporal and social
context which is in a natural way linked to engineering ethics education.

3. Context: USE basic course on ethics of technology

Our study focused on a course of Ethics and History of Technology provided by a European Technical
University for all 1800 first year bachelor engineering students from April to June 2019. For this 11-
week course students chose one out of nine cases that involve historical and ethical aspects of
technology across 4 topics (Health, Energy, ICT and Mobility). Students worked in multidisciplinary
teams on an assignment related to the chosen case.
A better understanding of the use of cases in engineering ethics education is important because this
education struggles with motivating, challenging and making ethics relevant young engineering
students REF. In the previous distant-case versions of this course, analysis showed that the central
role of competence in the assignment to influence firstly intrinsic motivation and students’ overall
course evaluation and secondly identified regulation to influence relevance REFsimplify.

3.1. Distant approach

[[[Andreas 300-500 words]]]

Describe course design, “standard ethics version” lecture and tutorials, assignment, ethical
assignment cycle. (in line with other parts of the essay) (cases micro/macro, distant; SDC and BCT
only). 

(effect of case study on teaching ethics) 

Case: distant example: China’s strive for hydropower: The Three Gorges Dam a disaster or an
example? /

Products:

3.2. Challenge-Based Learning and Co-Creation approach

The constitution of student groups and the number of assignments was the same in the co-creative
approach as in the distant approach. In total there were 180 students, in three tutorial groups of 60,
each containing 12 assignment groups of 4 -5 students from different study backgrounds. The
structure of the co-creative track of the course was planned around a collaborative project that
students undertook with an external stakeholder. For each tutorial group of 60 students there were 4
stakeholders. Each stakeholder worked with three assignment groups per tutorial. Over the course of
9 weeks, of which 8 were teaching weeks, the students met their stakeholders four times. At the first
meeting, the stakeholders introduced themselves with a short presentation. The meetings after that
were feedback sessions where the student groups would talk with their stakeholders and get
feedback on their ideas. At the end of the course, there was an end-event where the students
presented their end-product to the stakeholders in poster-market style.

The course contained three types of meetings. Discussion sessions, stakeholder-feedback sessions
and coaching sessions. The discussion sessions used flip the classroom approach, students would
read material on ethical theories at home and carry out exercises in class, with discussions about the
material and the application of the theories to case of their stakeholder. The stakeholder-feedback
sessions were held every other week. In these sessions the assignment groups working with a
stakeholder would meet with their client and have a chance to ask questions and receive feedback.
The tutors took a passive role in these meetings and stimulated the students to prepare and to take
charge of the meetings themselves. In the weeks without a stakeholder-feedback session there was a
coaching session. In the coaching sessions each assignment group would sit together with the tutor
for 15 minutes. The students were again stimulated to prepare for these meetings and take charge of
them. The coaching session was framed as an opportunity to ask the tutor questions and get
feedback, on either the content of the assignment or the learning process of the group.

The assignment for students in the co-creative track was to analyze an ethical issue which the
stakeholder faced and to develop a design-solution to relieve or address this problem and give an
argumentation why their design is more ethical. Each group was to create an end-product that could
be in any form, as long as it showed ethical sensitivity and analysis of the ethical challenge of the
stakeholder. The students were given the following instructions: “The client comes to you with a
complicated problem, with many ethical aspects, and you must solve it in a way that makes those
moral problems explicit. Keep the focus of the assignment in mind: remember that the point is to
describe and analyze the ethical problem facing the client and give advice on how to deal with it.”

The assignment groups produced a diverse range of end-products. One such project was done by a
student group for their stakeholder Team CASA, a student team working on a sustainable and
circularly built smart house. Team CASA is a student team at the university where the course was
given. They presented to the students the following challenge “How can CASA use sensors in such a
way that it respects privacy and ensures security?” The assignment group had, though their ethical
analysis, concluded that the CASA house was a morally good product that did not violate people’s
privacy and that fears about smart houses were overreactions. The group decided to make a
promotional video for the CASA house, which addressed the fears about loss of autonomy and
privacy. The video contained a voiceover and graphic images of a couple having a discussion about
moving into a CASA house. One character expressed fears about the smart house and the other
answered using facts about the sensors of the smart house. The story concluded with the fearful
character being convinced and the two living happily ever after in the CASA house. The end-product
itself served to promote CASA, as the students were convinced the CASA house had important
merits. The narrative in the video showed an understanding of the arguments against smart houses
as well as skill in refuting those arguments. Another student group developed used Fourrier
transformations to change the sensor data into data that is not meaningful for future inhabitants, but
still could be used for acoustics analysis.

Another student group worked for Jouw Licht op 040, an innovative procurement initiative to involve
citizens in the planning of city lighting. “How can JLO040 design a neighborhood Eindhoven is
“prettier, safer, and more interesting” through lighting?” One assignment group working with them
responded to the challenge by calling into question the assumption that everyone wants smart
lighting that tracks their movements. The group created a prototype for a light installation that
engaged citizens with ethical questions like the tradeoff between safety and privacy.

4.   Research Questions
We ask three research questions. The first two refer to the course effect, specified to challenge-
based learning and co-creation. The third one refers to the practical implications of organizing
CBL/CC.

(1) RQ1: Is the CBL approach better than the detached approach for students’ motivation and self-
assessed competence development?

(2) What is the relation between perceived Co-Creation on the one hand and the students’
motivation and self-assessed competence development on the other hand?

(3) What are the practical and content-wise implications teaching ethics with Co-Creation (CBL)?

5.   Analysis

5.1. Instruments 

The instruments for quantitative measurements used in this inquiry are described and one or more
items are mentioned as example in Table XXX. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scales,
except for overall evaluation which was measured on a 10-point Likert scale.

Two general items on overall evaluation and relevance were asked. Motivation was measured with
the validated ‘Self-regulation questionnaire – Academics’ (Vansteenkiste et al., 2009) measuring
three types of motivation (intrinsic motivation, identified regulation and amotivation) using two
items per scale. Basic needs competence, relatedness, and autonomy were measured with a
validated basic need survey (Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993) using three items per factor.

The items for co-creation were developed for this inquiry, starting from the definition of Voorberg,
Bekkers, & Tummers (2015). Eight questions were formulated and validated by 6 group discussions.
Four questions were retained, see table X.

 
Table XXX: Example items for factors used in quantitative analysis

Factor or item Example item

Relevance The USE basic course contribute to my development as an engineer.

Overall evaluation On a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate the USE Basic course?

Autonomy I feel like I could make a lot of inputs to decide how my tasks got done.

Relatedness I really like the people I worked with in the USE course.

Competence I felt a sense of accomplishment from this course’s work.

 Intrinsic Motivation … it’s an exciting thing to do.

Identified Regulation … the subjects of this course are an important life goal to me.

… this represents a meaningful choice to me.

Amotivation … I don’t see why I should study it and, frankly, I couldn’t care less.

Co-Creation … we were engaged in the work of the client

… we contributed to the work of the client

… we were actively involved in the co-creation process with the client

… the client found our contribution useful

A validated self-assessment of competence development questionnaire was developed (see

Doulougeri in review). For every competence field, 1 competence was selected and applied to the
ethics situation and measured with three items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed … Some
numbers why it is a good questionnaire.

 ACQA competence Competencies addressed Name Example item

area during Introductory Ethics
course

Competent in one or Understands the knowledge ACQA1_Knowledge I am able to compare different

more scientific base of the relevant fields theoretical explanations  of the
disciplines (theories, methods, relevant disciplines for a USE issue
techniques). [ks] I.1

Competent in doing Is able to reformulate ill- ACQA2_Reformulate I am able to justify my research

research structured research/design question of a USE problem to the
problems. Also takes account involved stakeholders
of the system boundaries in
Competent in
this. Is able to defend the new
designing
interpretation against
involved parties. [ksa] II.1, III.1

Scientific Approach - -

Basic Intellectual Is able (with supervision) to ACQA3_reflect I am able to adjust my own thinking,
Skills critically reflect on his or her decision making and acting in
own thinking, decision accordance with the responsibilities of
making, and acting and to an engineer
adjust these on the basis of
 
this reflection. [ks] V.1

  Is able to take a standpoint ACQA4_standpoint I am able to take a well- argued

 with regard to a scientific standpoint with regard to the
argument in the field and is scientific argument on USE aspects of
able to assess this critically as technology
to its value. [ksa] V.6
 
 

Competent in co- Is able to communicate in ACQA5_communicate I am able to communicate in writing

operating and writing about the results of about USE topics with involved
 
communicating learning, thinking and stakeholders
decision making with
colleagues and non
colleagues. [ks] VI.1

  Is able to work within an ACQA6_interdisciplinary I am able to combine the

interdisciplinary team. [ks] contributions from different disciplines
VI.7 into the work of an  interdisciplinary
group

Takes account of Is able to take societal aspects ACQA7_context I am able to evaluate the societal
temporal and social when developing technologies consequences of technological
context developments

 
Qualitative data were collected in three different ways. Two open questions were asked in the
student questionnaire (“What did you like about the course?” and “What would you like to
change?”). During the sessions, number? After the sessions, number? focus groups were held.
Interviews were performed with the three CBL tutors and two external stakeholders.

 
5.2. Procedure, sample and factor analysis
Data was collected in week 9 (last week of contact hours) of the ethics of technology basic course.
Students received an invitation by email to fill out an electronic questionnaire, asking for informed
consent and no compensation was given. Researchers only could work with the anonymized master
file, in agreement with the national law and the data protection officer.

For the co-creation population, 56 out of 183 students (RR=30,6%) responded. For the detached
population, 56 out of 316 responded (RR=17,7%), being a sufficient response rate (Nulty, 2008). The
CC-sample has no gender bias (65% male, 35% female in both despondence and non-respondence
group). The detached sample has a bias (χ2 = 0.035) with 57% male and 43% who answered versus
71% male and 29% female who did not answer. There was no response bias for nationality, the co-
creation sample having 86% Dutch and 14% international respondents, the detached case 91% Dutch
and 9% international respondents. ANOVA between response and non-response across departments
was not significant, indicating no departmental response bias for the two samples.

 All factors had good reliability scores (Kline, 2013) , with Cronbach’s alpha for motivation and basic
need between 0.77 and 0.91, co-creation 0.74 and the self-assessed competence development
factors all higher than 0.81.
To answer the first research question (“Is the Co-Creation approach better than the detached
approach for students’ motivation and self-assessed competence development?“), we performed t-
tests between the two approaches and classified the Cohen’s d effect size with 0.5>d ≥0.2 as small,
0.8>d≥0.5 as medium and d>0.8 as large (Cohen, 1988).

To answer the second research question (“What is the relation between perceived Co-Creation on
the one hand and the students’ motivation and self-assessed competence development on the other
hand?“), we performed correlation research. We classified Pearson’s correlation r as small for r>0.1,
medium for r>0.3 and large for r>0.5 (Cohen, 1988).

To answer the third research question (“What are the practical and content-wise implications
teaching ethics with Co-Creation?“), we … how data analysed? 

5.3. Comparison between 2019 detached and CBL approaches

Overall evaluation was bigger in the CBL approach (large effect size), whereas relevance was not
different across the cases. For the basic needs the differences between the approaches were non-
significant for relatedness, small for autonomy and medium for competence. The analysis of
motivation showed that intrinsic motivation was higher (medium effect), identified regulation was
lower and amotivation was higher (large effect) in the CBL approach. There were no significant
differences between the students’ perceived competence developments between the two
approaches, except for ACQA2_reformulate where CC-students give higher self-assessments (small
effect). See Table YY for more details.

 
Table YY: number of respondents (N), mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of CBL and detached
approach; differences in mean (ΔM), significances and Cohen’s d effect sizes (d).
 

  CBL Detached Difference

Factor N M SD N Mean SD ΔM(sign d

)

Overall Evaluation 56 7.48 1.22 56 6.54 1.74 0.95** 0.63

Autonomy 55 4.27 0.63 55 3.99 0.64 0.28* 0.45

Competence 55 3.85 0.82 55 3.24 0.88 0.62*** 0.73

Relatedness 55 4.01 0.63 55 4.02 0.76 -0.01 -0.02

Intrinsic motivation 54 3.38 0.77 54 2.76 0.97 0.62*** 0.71

Identified regulation 54 2.06 0.97 54 2.93 1.07 -0.87*** -0.85

Amotivation 54 3.01 0.80 54 2.19 1.18 0.81*** 0.81

Acqa2_reformulate 53 3.93 0.58 54 3.67 0.71 0.28** 0.44

  *p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
 

Qualitative results

During the qualitative data analysis three themes emerged from the discussions with students:
students’ preference for the flipped classroom approach; students’ motivation to work on client-
oriented report; and students increased perceived autonomy to work on the final deliverable.

Over 90% of the students reported that they preferred the flipped classroom approach as it
facilitated learning. The lecture time was more productive and engaging for students and it enhanced
their self-regulated learning. The flipped classroom approach required students to prepare and study
in advance but as a result of it the lecture time was more engaging and interactive with the use of
the poster and the work in small groups.

I enjoyed the 'flipped classroom' method because it approaches the project from a hands-on project. I
still got the knowledge but the practical aspect was really nice.

The students shared their views with regard to self- directed learning. Most students enjoyed the
flipped classroom set up as it helps them find their own pace with regard to learning but also
engaged actively during the lecture time as they already had background information and they were
provided opportunities to practice their knowledge through activities. A draw back mentioned was
the discussion sessions were following the same format and type of activities every time, so it
became a bit repetitive towards the end.

Students were excited to work on a project with real clients. It enhanced their perceived relevance
and engagement to the course as the final report was perceived as valuable to the ‘’real world”. In
addition, they perceived the project as quite open and they felt they could make a lot of
contributions which enhance their perception of autonomy as well as their creativity.

It was really nice that we could come up with and develop our own project. Also, that we could work
with a real client made it interesting and useful for me.

Being a real project involving clients was rewarding for students as they saw the relevance of the
ethics course with real life. However, clients were only available at 2 times during the course which
was considered limited by several students who felt that the clients were an add-on rather than the
true stakeholders. As a student put it: “More contact with the stakeholder would have been helpful”.

Students despite the fact that enjoyed the course towards the end started struggling with the
balance between the deliverable they had to produce for the client and the assignment report that
was a formal requirement of the course. As a student put it: “Make the assignments more clear so
there is not so much confusion anymore, give a more detailed view about what to do exactly in the
assignments.” Students appreciated the option of having short and to the point coaching session
with their own coach. That helped them structure their work. Often it was experienced that students
were there only to report progress and ask questions, but the coaches steered them towards
reflecting on the overall process rather than giving them specific answers. The relationship with the
coaches mentioned by the majority of the students as one of the advantages of this approach. The
coaches apart from being perceived as knowledgeable, warm and responsive to student’s needs.
Without being too directive in the process, students felt that coaches were there to provide an
overall guidance that ensured that they remained on track.

5.4. Role of perceived co-creation

 Perceived co-creation showed strong positive correlation with overall evaluation and medium with
relevance. It showed strong positive correlations with all basic needs and motivation factors, except
for autonomy and amotivation which showed medium positive correlations and identified regulation
which showed a medium negative correlation. The perceived competence developments showed
positive small to medium correlations, except for ACQA4_standpoint and ACQA6_interdisciplinarity
showing no significant correlation and ACQA5_communicate showing large correlation.

Table X: Pearson’s correlations r (with significance) between basic needs, motivation, relevance,
overall evaluation, and perceived competence development.
 

Factor - r(sign) Factor - r(sign)Factor Factor - r(sign)

Relevance .364** Intrinsic motivation .573*** ACQA3_reflect .286*

Overall evaluation .548*** Identified Regulation -.297* ACQA4_standpoint -

Autonomy .355** Amotivation .475*** ACQA5_communicate .658***

Relatedness .507*** ACQA1_knowledge .316* ACQA6_interdisciplinarity -

Competence .548*** ACQA2_reformulate .290* ACQA7_context .291*

*p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

 
[[[Focus groups/interviews/… Karolina]]]
(in video: “feel empowered”, “you want to do good”)
 
 
5.5. Implications for teaching ethics with co-creative CBL
 
(3) What are the practical and content-wise implications teaching ethics with Co-Creation (CBL)?

Interviews with the involved tutors on ethics in CBL in general and CC in particular revealed their
opinions on the new role of themselves as tutors, theories, students and external stakeholders.
In teaching with the co-creative approach, tutors must acquire a different set of skills than in the
detached approach. The most important skills specific to the co-creative approach are mediating
ethics, improvisation and providing an open structure.

Being able to mediate ethics was important because most students and external stakeholders have
no or little competencies of formulating a real life problem in ethical terms. The tutors’ skills in
mediating were essential for making sure that the stakeholders and the students understand how the
course activities relate to the ethics objectives of the course. Teachers discussed in advance with the
stakeholders what the main questions would be. In this way, it narrowed down a bit what students
could do, but made it more manageable for the tutors. The questions were still open enough so that
6 groups starting from the same assignment did 6 completely different things (and where there was
complementarity, students sometimes started to work together).

As ambiguity is crucial in CBL as a driver for students because it challenges them (G. Bombaerts &
Spahn, 2019) and first year’s need strong structure and support here. Ambiguity and structure do not
have to be conflicting ( Bombaerts et al., 2018). The structure can be on the more abstract,
methodological level. In the USE basic course, the structure was realized by several elements. The
very first lecture already used flipped-classroom, but without ethical content, giving students the
possibility to “practice” and “get acquainted” to the method. Starting with a lecture would have
given a wrong impression. The group contact moments had always the same (open) structure which
created trust and feeling of safety and predictability according to the tutors. The first year’s students
had to follow a step-by-step methodology “ethical cycle” (REF) which was nevertheless very open to
tackle all kinds of problems in a creative way. It was described in the book with two examples and
also practices a lot during class. They practiced this step by step methodology as we proceeded.
Problem is that students do not have an idea “where it goes to”. So next version, they will go through
the entire cycle when we present it the first time, so there is more awareness on what the cycle
does. Some students also indicated issues in group work. As group work is particularly important in
CBL, tutors decided to provide more guidance here the subsequent year, such as extra training for
the tutors (how to talk about group issues in an open way in 15 minutes where you also discuss
content, …), a group work session in which students speak out individually to the other group
members in the beginning what their expectations are; and peer feedback tool via the student
learning platform. Tutors also deliberately organized weekly feedback meetings. This helped groups
that are, with all the above methods, still feeling insecure, to get more at ease. It was a heavy
investment (every week, 4 contact hours extra), but tutors considered it certainly worth the effort.
Because of the open-ended nature of the assignment, quite some flexibility was asked of the tutors.
This flexibility meant being able to facilitate the creativity of students productively, even if it swirled
in unexpected directions. Flexibility was also required in the grading of the end-products which
ranged from reports to videos or light-installations.

The CBL approach made it easier for PhD students to take over an entire class. The fact that content
was studied at home by the students meant that the time in the class could be used for discussing
examples. Particularly in the case of PhD students working on applied ethics, the flipped classroom
approach made it easier for individual tutors to link teaching with their research. The class time could
be spent discussing the application of theories to topics closer to the expertise of the PhD student-
tutor. On the other hand, tutors indicated that CBL requires much more practical work. They stressed
the set-up of the course as intense, like finding the stakeholders and mediating the ethics challenges
in the stakeholders’ challenges. In universities that are not yet designed for CBL, it also means some
extra work on the very practical level, like going 30 minutes earlier to the classroom to move tables
in the desired activating setting and putting posters and pens on the tables. They roughly calculated
60% more contact hours compared to the detached approach. This is substantial, but comparable
with other forms of project work.
Tutors provided standard ethical theories and practiced in applying them in the ethical cycle, but at
the same time encouraged students to look for different theories and apply them in creative ways.
The role of ethical theories changed from theoretical tools, in the detached approach, to guides for
practice in the co-creative approach. The students were repeatedly challenged to explain their value-
based design implementation and the reasoning for it to the stakeholders. There was pressure to
create a solution which could be justified to the tutor using an ethical theory, but also to the
stakeholder who is in search of practical solutions. In the detached approach, understanding the
ethical theories was framed as central, and the application of the theories came across as a way to
demonstrate this understanding. The tutors mentioned that in the co-creative approach, the ethical
theories became instrumental to making the right design choices, which led to the success of the
end-product. 

Students experienced it as motivating to work for an external stakeholder, not “for the tutor.”
According to the tutors, another motivating component was the degree of trust that the tutors
expressed towards the students. This trust was embodied by the free form of the end-product, the
flipped-classroom approach, where students were trusted to prepare at home, and the
encouragement to take charge of the stakeholder-feedback sessions.

Stakeholders expressed that it was feasible for them to have three to six groups working on their
challenges, even for first-year’s students who do not bring in technical know-how. They expressed
that for them, it was interesting that students come with up out-of-the-box solutions.

rooms

6.   Discussion

6.1. Course effect

If we look at the output of the course, our analysis was in favor of the CBL/CC approach. The
variables central in our ethics course redesign - overall evaluation, competence and intrinsic
motivation - clearly showed significant differences between the CBL and distant approach and a
strong correlation with CC. These results showed that the redesign based on our specific targets of
increasing competence and intrinsic motivation was successful and that co-creation played a relevant
role. Tutors confirmed this result when they stated that students experienced it as motivating to
work for an external stakeholder, not for the tutor.
Other variables also showed positive results, although less outspoken. Autonomy and
ACQA2_reformulate were higher in the CBL case compared to the distant case, but correlated less
with CC. We assume that other than the CC aspect in CBL contributed to this difference. It could have
been the flipped-classroom approach that provided an increased feeling of autonomy REF and the
more intensive coaching that made students report that they felt good in reformulating ill-structured
problems REF. Relatedness and ACQA5_communicate explicitly refer to collaboration or
communication with peers or with the stakeholders. They showed strong correlations with CC as
expected. Tutors mentioned that they felt that students had trust in them as tutors. However, the
results did not show significant differences between the CBL and the distant approach. We interpret
that these variables were not significant to influence the students’ overall evaluation of the CBL
approach.

More surprisingly is that identified regulation was significantly higher in the distant compared to the
CBL approach and showed negative correlation with CC. Amotivation equally unexpectedly showed
the opposite pattern. Based on our data, it is difficult to give an explanation to this. We postulate
that the CBL/CC approach made first year’s students experience in a very early stage complexity and
ambiguity dissonant to their own views on what their future profession would look like. As we
experienced in the previous years, many students acknowledge, on an abstract level, that ethics will
be part of their future job. But they do not see the relevance as it was taught to them in the distant
approach. Maybe in the CBL/CC approach, students could not escape the confrontation between the
messages of the ethics course and their own views. 

Interviews with tutors confirmed the quantitative analysis. CC learning seems therefore certainly
relevant in fields for which a student population is not automatically motivated for, but where the
university really wants that students engage in, like ethics.

In-depth – more clearly mention the level – weblectures

Tutors reported that role of ethical theories changed from theoretical tools, in the detached
approach, to guides for practice in the co-creative approach.

6.2. Practical implications

The motivational and competence developmental aspects of the course could only be realized by
changing roles of tutors of mediating ethics for students and external stakeholders and providing an
open structure. So an ethics CBL course requires tutors with other competencies, next to more tutor
time compared to the detached approach, but comparable with other forms of project work.
Nevertheless, some aspects make the scaling of this course more realistic. PhD students can take
over an entire CBL class if the technical topic is close to the PhD student’s research. And individual
stakeholders mention that taking 6 groups is certainly realistic and relevant for their work. As such,
groups of 60 can be multiplied in 30 tutor groups up to 1800 students in the course we discuss in this
article. Of course, the challenge of finding 60 stakeholders and quality control of the process remains
quite an organization challenge.

6.3. Limitations

We compared the detached and the CBL approach and tried to isolate the contribution of the co-
creation activities. We did so looking at response rates and biases, validated questionnaires and strict
statistical methods. Nevertheless, the evidence-informed approach has inherent weaknesses in
measuring engineering ethics education impact.

-          RR significant, but rather low

- delimitation CBL and distant approaches. Differences in CBL and distant approaches.

- We opted for a self-assessment of competence development in engineering ethics education that

can be applied uniformly across the different approaches. Nevertheless self-assessment of
competence development has some issues (how does self-assessment and tutor-assessment
correlate, …), but no other validated instruments available.

-          co-creation instrument validated, but how relevant for our research? Explain more

- “peter principle” of ander woord voor experiment altijd positiever beoordeeld, gemotiveerde
teachers en studenten

- no further explanations why certain results (amotivation and identified regulation, …)

- We tested the co-creation case-based learning in one university and in one course. A test in other
universities for other courses (STS, economy, law, …)  will give a more robust result. We foresee to
test this in the coming two years (19-20 and 20-21) for the SCALINGS partners.

7.   Conclusion

Redo this conclusion part, it is currently too much of a repetition

Message: CBL/CC in ethics courses does not solve all problems (amotivation, …) and comes with a
price (more tutors needed, other qualified, insecurity of external stakeholders). But we think it is
nevertheless worth doing it for motivational and competence development purposes.

We conclude that the CBL and CC approaches were overall positive for motivation, competence
development and feasibility. Research questions one asking if the CBL approach is better than the
detached approach for students’ motivation and self-assessed competence development can be
answered positively for intrinsic motivation, competence and reformulation of ill-structured
problems. So our research learns, taking its limits into account, which specifically ethics courses
focusing on reformulation could benefit from a CBL approach. Inquiries on research questions two
asking what the relation is between perceived co-creation on the one hand and the students’
motivation and self-assessed competence development on the other hand, illustrated that co-
creation is especially relevant for increasing competencies to communicate with stakeholders.

We indicated several practical and content-wise implications teaching ethics with co-creation and
CBL that the role of ethics theories changes, that tutors have to take different roles as mediating
ethics and YYY. We also conclude that the CBL/CC approach can be scaled, but challenges of finding
qualified tutors and external stakeholders will remain.

  

8.   Acknowledgements

We like to thank all teachers, tutors and students involved in the research for their valuable input.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
program under Grant Agreement No. 788359.

9.   References

 
Bibliography Diana
Abaté, C.J. (2011). Should engineering ethics be taught? Science and Engineering Ethics 17(3):583–
596.
Aldridge, M.D. (1994). Professional practice: A Topic for engineering research and instruction, Journal
of Engineering Education,  83(3), 231–36
Andrews, G.S. (2013). Appendix, in Canadian Professional Engineering and Geoscience: Practice and
Ethics, 5th Edition, Nelson College Indigenous, [online]
http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0176764674_599142.pdf [available 6 Jan
2020]
Apple Education (2008). White Paper: Challenge based learning. [online]
https://www.apple.com/ca/education/docs/Apple-ChallengedBasedLearning.pdf [available 9 Jan
202]
Bagdasarov, Z., Thiel, C. E., Johnson, J. F., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L. N., Devenport, L. D., & Mumford,
M. D. (2013). Case-based ethics instruction: The influence of contextual and individual factors in case
content on ethical decisionmaking. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1305–1322
 
Barry, B.E., Ohland, M.W. (2009). Applied ethics in the Engineering, Health, Business, and Law
professions: A comparison. Journal of Engineering Education 98(4): 377–388
Bucciarelli, L. L. (2008). Ethics and engineering education, European Journal of Engineering Education,
33(2): 141-149
 
Byrne, E. P. (2012). Teaching engineering ethics with sustainability as context, International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(3):. 232 - 248
Colby, A., and Sullivan, W. (2008). Ethics Teaching in Undergraduate Engineering Education. Journal
of Engineering Education, 97(3), 327-338
Davis, M., (1999). Ethics and the University, London: Routledge

Dempsey, J., Stamets, J.,Eggleson, K.(2017). Stakeholder views of Nanosilver linings: Macroethics
education and automated text analysis through participatory governance role play in a workshop
format, Science and Engineering Ethics 23(3): 913-939
Fotheringham, H. (2008). Ethics case studies: placing ethical practice in an engineering context, 2008
Engineering Conference - Innovation Good Practice and Research in Engineering Education.
Gorman, M. E., Mehalik, M. M., Werhane, P. H. (2000). Ethical and Environmental Challenges to
Engineering, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M.S., Rabins, M.J. (2009). Engineering ethics : concepts and cases. Fourth
edition, Boston, MA: Cengage.
Haws, D.R. (2001). Ethics instruction in engineering education: A (mini) meta-analysis. Journal of
Engineering Education, 90 (2), 223-229
Herkert, J.R. (2000). Engineering ethics education in the USA: Content, pedagogy and curriculum,
European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), 303-313
 
Herreid, C. F. (2007). Start with a story: The case study method of teaching college science. NSTA
Press: Arlington, VA.
 
Holgaard, J. E. & Kolmos, A. (2018). Differences in company projects; a way of inspiring educational
design for employability, Poster presented at the SEFI Annual Conference 17-21 September 2018,
Copenhagen, Denmark, .
 
Johnson, L. and Adams, S. (2011). Challenge Based Learning: The Report from the Implementation
Project. The New Media Consortium [online
https://www.apple.com/ca/education/docs/NMC_CBLi_Report_Oct_2011.pdf [available 6 Jan 2020]
Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design:
Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50,
65–77
 
Kalamas Hedden, M., Worthy, R., Akins, E., Slinger-Friedman, V., Paul, R.C. (2017). Teaching
Sustainability using an active learning constructivist approach: Discipline-specific case studies in
higher education, Sustainability, 9(8): 1-18
Kline, R. (2010). Engineering Case Studies: Bridging Micro and Macro Ethics, IEEE Technology and
Society Magazine, 29(4), 16-19.
 
Kumar, D. (2015). Consumer Behavior, Oxford University Press
 
Latcha, M., and Jordan, W. (1996). To ship or not to ship: An Engineering ethics case study,
Technology-Based Re-Engineering Engineering Education Proceedings of Frontiers in Education FIE’96
26th Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, USA, 3:1159-1163.
Lynch, W. T., & Kline, R. (2000). Engineering practice and engineering ethics. Science Technology and
Human Values, 25(2), 195–225.
 
Martin, D.A., Conlon, E. & Bowe, B. (2019). The role of role-play in student awareness of the social
dimension of the engineering profession, European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(6), 882-905
 
Mattasoglio Neto, O., Lima, R. and Mesquita, D. (2019). Changing an Engineering Curriculum through
a Co-Construction Process: A Case Study, International Journal of Engineering Education, 35 (4):
1129–1140,
 
Mc Carton, L., O'Hógáin, S. (2018) Where There Is No Engineer - Designing for Community Resilience.
Development Technology in the Community (DTC) Research Group, Technological University Dublin
(DIT) and Engineers Without Borders (EWB) Ireland, 2018. [online]
https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=engschivbk [available
06.01.2019]
 
Mitcham, C. (2017). Engineering Ethics: From Thinking Small to Deep and Big. Colorado School of
Mines Distinguished Lecture
 
Morrison, A. (2019). Situating moral agency: How Postphenomenology can benefit Engineering
Eehics, Science and Engineering Ethics
Newberry, B. (2010). Katrina: Macro-ethical issues for engineers. Science and Engineering Ethics,
16(3), 535-571
 
Nichols, M., Cator, K., and Torres, M. (2016). Challenge Based Learning Guide. Digital Promise,
Redwood City, CA
Shallcross, D. (2013). Safety Education Through Case Study Presentations, Education for Chemical
Engineers 8: e12–e30.
Swearengen, J.C. and Woodhouse, E. (2003). “Overconsumption as an ethical challenge for
engineering education”. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 31(1): 15–31
Verbeek, P.P. (2008). Morality in design: Design ethics and the morality of technological artifacts. In
Vermaas, P.E., Kroes, P., Light, A. and Moore, S.A (eds.), Philosophy and Design: from Engineering to
Architecture. Dordrecht: Springer, 91-103
Verbeek, P. P. (2011). Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things,
Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press
‘Where There is no Engineer’ initiative 2018 homes in on forced migration theme’ (2018), Engineers
Journal, [online] http://www.engineersjournal.ie/2018/07/10/no-engineer-initiative-2018-homes-
forced-migration-theme/ [available 6 Jan 2020]
Wilson, W.R. (2013). Using the Chernobyl incident to teach Engineering ethics, Science and
Engineering Ethics, 19(625), 625-640
Winner, L. (1986), Do artefacts have politics? in (ed.) Winner, L. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search
for Limits in an Age of High Technology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,19-39.